Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 64 references

Search for millicharged particles in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13.6$ TeV

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Using 124.7 fb^-1 of 13.6 TeV proton-proton collisions, the milliQan bar detector finds no millicharged particles and sets the strongest limits yet for charges <= 0.24e and masses >= 0.45 GeV.

desk verdict A solid, if incremental, null-result search that sets new mCP exclusion limits; the SR2 background validation is the weak spot, but it does not undermine the central claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02251 v2 pith:LULAWHXE submitted 2025-06-02 hep-ex

S. Alcott , Z. Bhatti , J. Brooke , C. Campagnari , M. Carrigan , M. Citron , R. De Los Santos , A. De Roeck
show 29 more authors
C. Dorofeev T. Du J. Goldstein F. Golf N. Gonzalez A. Haas J. Heymann C.S. Hill D. Imani M. Joyce K. Larina R. Loos S. Lowette H. Mei D.W. Miller B. Peng S.N. Santpu I. Reed E. Schaffer R. Schmitz J. Steenis D. Stuart J.S. Tafoya Vargas D. Vannerom T. Wybouw Z. Xiao H. Zaraket G. Zecchinelli C. Zheng
This is my paper
classification hep-ex PACS 13.85.Rm14.80.-j29.40.Mc
keywords millichargedparticlesdarksectorLHCRun3scintillatorbardetectorDrell-Yanproductionvectormesondecaysexclusionlimitnullsearch
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Millicharged particles (mCPs) are hypothetical dark-sector particles with electric charge far below the electron charge, so small that they pass through ordinary detectors without leaving a clear ionization signature. This paper reports a dedicated search at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) using the completed milliQan bar detector, a four-layer array of plastic scintillator bars in a drainage gallery 33 m from the collision point, shielded by 17 m of rock. With 124.7 $fb^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions at 13.6 TeV, the search finds no clean mCP candidate and sets the most stringent direct limits to date for charges of 0.24e or less and masses above 0.45 GeV. If correct, the result means that, under the modeled Drell-Yan and vector-meson decay production modes, no such particle is produced at the LHC with a rate above the quoted 95% confidence limit, narrowing the viable parameter space for dark-sector models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing instrument is the Run 3 milliQan bar detector: 64 plastic scintillator bars in four layers of 4x4, read out by photomultiplier tubes and digitizers, with veto panels to reject cosmic-ray muons and through-going collision products, and an FPGA trigger requiring hits that point back to the interaction point. The search signature is a four-fold coincidence in the same row and column across all layers within 20 ns, a low-ionization straight track expected of an mCP. Backgrounds are estimated with two ABCD methods, validated against no-beam data and closure samples, and the 95% confidence upper limits come from a profile-likelihood fit using the CLs criterion. The signal simulation chains Pythia8 and MadGraph5 event generation with a Geant4 model of the rock, gallery, and detector, injecting pulse templates taken from data.

What would settle it

A single clean candidate event in the beam-on dataset passing the SR1 requirement (four-layer straight-line pulse, same row/column, timing spread below 20 ns, no veto hits) with a high-statistics ABCD background prediction near 0.1 would falsify the null result. Concretely, such an event in a future unblinded dataset from the slab detector, with expected background below about 0.1 events, would overturn the claim that no mCP is produced in this parameter space at the LHC.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a null result expressed as an exclusion: no millicharged particle in the charge range up to 0.24e and mass range from 0.45 GeV upward is produced in 13.6 TeV proton collisions at a rate the detector could see. Behind that claim is a counting experiment: after selecting events with a straight-line, four-layer scintillator pulse pointing at the collision point and timed within 20 ns, the analysis observes 0 events in the low-charge signal region (SR1) against a predicted background of 0.10, and 2 events in the higher-charge region (SR2) against 0.87 predicted. Both observations are consistent with background, so the 95% confidence upper limit is set from a simultaneous maximum-likelihood fit using the CLs criterion, with the dominant systematic being the roughly 30% uncertainty in mCP production cross sections. The result is presented as the strongest direct constraint today for charges <= 0.24e and masses >= 0.45 GeV.

Load-bearing premise

The reported limits assume millicharged particles are produced at the LHC at the rates predicted for the Drell-Yan and vector-meson decay channels, with cross sections extrapolated from lower energies and fits; if the true production rate is lower than assumed, or if an unmodeled production channel dominates, the exclusion region in the charge-mass plane would shrink.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The new 95% confidence exclusion pushes the lower bound on millicharged-particle charge in the mass range above 0.45 GeV to 0.24e, narrower than any prior direct search.
  • The ABCD background-estimation method, validated with beam-off and closure samples, transfers directly to the upcoming slab-detector dataset and to other scintillator-based searches.
  • Dark-sector models that produce millicharged particles through Drell-Yan or vector-meson decays lose the parameter space below Q=0.24e for masses above 0.45 GeV as a viable LHC-production region.
  • The null result establishes that a four-layer, 20 ns coincidence in a compact scintillator array behind rock is a workable strategy for feebly interacting particle searches at hadron colliders.
  • Because the dominant systematic is the roughly 30% cross-section uncertainty, a future re-analysis with improved production calculations will directly sharpen or soften these limits.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The reported muon-flux cross-check (measured 0.160 plus or minus 0.010 vs Monte Carlo 0.22 plus or minus 0.06 muons per pb^-1) suggests the signal simulation may overproduce low-momentum muons; a refined low-momentum production model could change the predicted signal yields in the meson-decay channel.
  • The same analysis chain could be reinterpreted as a constraint on any new particle with effective charge q that is pair-produced at the LHC and penetrates the rock shield, not only on canonical millicharged particles.
  • Combining the bar data with the slab detector's first data will extend sensitivity to higher masses, where the bar-only acceptance limits the current reach.
  • If future measurements of charmonium and bottomonium production at 13.6 TeV revise the cross-section ratios used for the 13-to-13.6 TeV extrapolation, the low-charge part of the exclusion boundary is the most likely region to move.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports a search for millicharged particles using the completed milliQan Run 3 bar detector in 124.7 fb^-1 of proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s)=13.6 TeV. Two signal regions target complementary charge ranges: SR1 for Q/e between about 10^-3 and 10^-2, and SR2 for Q/e between about 10^-2 and 10^-1. Backgrounds are estimated with ABCD methods in each signal region, with expected yields of 0.10+0.12-0.07 (SR1) and 0.87+0.33-0.26 (SR2), and observed yields of 0 and 2 events, respectively. No excess is found, and a CLs upper limit is set on the mCP production cross section. The authors claim the most stringent constraints to date for charges <=0.24 e and masses >=0.45 GeV. The production model includes Drell-Yan and vector-meson decays, with cross sections taken from external theory and lower-energy fits, and the detector simulation is validated against through-going LHC muons.

Significance. If the result is correct, it constitutes a substantial experimental advance in the direct search for millicharged particles at the LHC. The analysis is built on a dedicated detector with the full Run 3 bar array, a large integrated luminosity, and two validated background-estimation strategies. The paper provides a null result with consistent observed and predicted counts, a closure test for the SR2 ABCD method, a beam-off control for SR1, and a careful treatment of signal-systematic uncertainties, notably the ~30% cross-section uncertainty. The strongest part is that the limit is based on observed data rather than on fitted signal parameters, and the exclusion region directly improves over previous direct constraints in a model-dependent but well-defined production scenario. The work should be of interest to the dark-sector and LHC communities, and it represents the first result from the completed milliQan Run 3 detector.

major comments (2)
  1. [Background estimation for SR2 (text near Table II and Figure 3)] The SR2 background prediction of 0.87+0.33-0.26 is the input to the limit in the charge range most relevant to the exclusion claim. The validation of this ABCD estimate is performed only with a closure test inside the C and D sidebands (events with more than 4 bars hit), and the text itself states that the beam-off data are not a useful control because the dominant SR2 background is LHC-collision muons. This closure test does not independently probe the signal-region corner (exactly 4 bars and end-panel nPE<70), so the independence assumption is not fully checked at the location where the background estimate is applied. The observed 2 events versus the predicted 0.87 are within the quoted uncertainties, but the limit depends on this background count. I request a quantitative robustness check: for example, recompute the 95% CL exclusion curve with the SR2 background fixed to 2.0 instead of 0.87, or add a systematic uncertainty derived from the closure-test discrepancy. This would directly address whether the claimed 'most stringent constraints' region is robust against a possible background undercount in SR2.
  2. [Limit-setting procedure (paragraph beginning 'With background estimates consistent...', and Figure 1)] The 95% CL upper limit is evaluated with asymptotic formulae in a regime of very low counts (n=0, b=0.10 in SR1; n=2, b=0.87 in SR2). The asymptotic approximation is known to be imperfect for such small event counts, especially when the profile-likelihood ratio is used with nuisance parameters. Because the central claim of the paper is the exclusion curve, the accuracy of the asymptotic CLs calculation at these low occupancies should be demonstrated. I ask the authors to validate the observed limit with toy Monte Carlo simulations or with an exact, non-asymptotic confidence-interval construction. This check is particularly relevant for the SR2 channel, where the observed count exceeds the background prediction and the background estimate itself carries sizable statistical uncertainty.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'most stringent constraints to date for particles with charges <=0.24 e and masses >=0.45 GeV' could be misread as excluding all particles with charge below 0.24 e in that mass range. Please clarify that the exclusion applies to the region of the charge-mass plane covered by the limit curve, i.e., for charges up to 0.24 e and masses above 0.45 GeV, the limit is the most stringent direct constraint.
  2. [SR2 closure test (paragraph beginning 'From the beam-off dataset...')] The closure test is described as constructing a 'new, independent ABCD plane' from regions C and D. Since the same events and the same discriminating variables are used, the test is not fully independent; it is a closure test within a subsample. I suggest rewording to avoid an overstatement of independence.
  3. [Detector simulation validation (muon flux paragraph)] The measured through-going muon flux, 0.160+-0.010 muons/pb^-1, is compared with a predicted value of 0.22+-0.06 muons/pb^-1. The central values differ by about 30%, and the uncertainty on the prediction is large. The text should state explicitly that this validation is consistent at the ~1 sigma level and that the same ~30% scale is reflected in the signal-yield systematic uncertainty used in the limit.
  4. [General presentation] The paper is generally well written, but a few minor grammar and style issues appear, for example 'The parton distribution functions ... was changed' in the simulation paragraph. A careful proofread would remove these small distractions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the exclusion limit is derived from observed event counts, ABCD sideband background estimates, and externally anchored cross-section simulations, not from a fit that reproduces the result by construction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained at the level of the null-result interpretation. The signal-region observations are 0 events in SR1 and 2 events in SR2, compared with ABCD background predictions of 0.10(+0.12,-0.07) and 0.87(+0.33,-0.26). Each ABCD estimate uses sideband counts B, C, and D, which exclude the signal-region count A, so the background 'prediction' is not a refit of the observation. Signal yields come from Geant4 simulation of Drell-Yan and vector-meson/Dalitz production, using external PDFs and ATLAS/CMS/LHCb cross-section data, plus a muon-flux comparison against CMS data. The prior milliQan papers are cited for detector geometry and the production recipe, but these are published and externally falsifiable inputs, not quantities defined by the present result. The paper itself flags the SR2 background-validation limitation: beam-off data are not a useful control because the dominant SR2 background is LHC-collision muons, and the closure test is performed within the same C/D sidebands rather than in an independent sample. That is a statistical-robustness caveat, not a circular step, because the closure test can fail and is not used to force agreement. No equation or selection defines the signal prediction in terms of the observed SR counts, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Consequently, no claimed prediction reduces to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to data; all thresholds are fixed a priori and the signal normalization is taken from external cross-section calculations. The analysis relies on standard simulation tools and a validated background model.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption mCPs lose energy through Q^2-scaled ionization and multiple scattering in the detector and rock.
    Used in Geant4 simulation to translate charge into signal; if ionization scaling differs, the limit changes.
  • domain assumption The dominant mCP production channels are Drell-Yan and decays of Upsilon, J/psi, psi(2S), phi, rho, omega, and Dalitz decays of pi0, eta, eta', omega.
    Signal efficiency and limits depend on these production modes and their extrapolated cross sections.
  • domain assumption The two ABCD variables are independent in the background, allowing extrapolation via BD/C.
    Used to estimate residual background in SR1 and SR2; validated on limited samples, the independence assumption could fail at low counts.
  • standard math CLs asymptotic formulae are valid for the low observed counts.
    Used to compute 95% CL limits; asymptotic approximation may be imperfect with 0 and 2 events but is standard in LHC analyses.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Search for millicharged particles in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13.6$ TeV." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LULAWHXE

@misc{pith2026250602251,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Search for millicharged particles in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrts = 13.6$ TeV},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LULAWHXE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02251}
}
abstract

We report on a search for elementary particles with charges much smaller than the electron charge using a data sample of proton-proton collisions provided by the CERN Large Hadron Collider in 2023--24, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 124.7~fb$^{-1}$ at a center-of-mass energy of 13.6~TeV. The analysis presented uses the completed Run 3 milliQan bar detector to set the most stringent constraints to date for particles with charges $\leq0.24~\rm{e}$ and masses $\geq0.45~\rm{GeV}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02251 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The 95% CL limit on the mCP charge compared to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The distributions of the uncorrelated variables used to define the ABCD regions used to estimate the background [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The distributions of the uncorrelated variables used to define the ABCD regions used to estimate the background [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Arkani-Hamed, D

    N. Arkani-Hamed, D. P. Finkbeiner, T. R. Slatyer, and N. Weiner, Phys. Rev. D79, 015014 (2009), arXiv:0810.0713 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2009

  2. [2]

    Pospelov and A

    M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, Phys. Lett. B671, 391 (2009), arXiv:0810.1502 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2009

  3. [3]

    Dark Matter Decaying into Millicharged Particles as a Solution to AMS 02 Positron Excess

    Y. Farzan and M. Rajaee, JCAP04, 040, arXiv:1901.11273 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 1901

  4. [4]

    A simple explanation of the PVLAS anomaly in spontaneously broken mirror models

    R. Foot and A. Kobakhidze, Phys. Lett. B650, 46 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0702125

    work page Pith review arXiv 2007

  5. [5]

    Dark antiatoms can explain DAMA

    Q. Wallemacq and J.-R. Cudell, JCAP02, 011, arXiv:1411.3178 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  6. [6]

    H. Gies, J. Jaeckel, and A. Ringwald, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 140402 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0607118

    arXiv 2006

  7. [7]

    Gan and Y.-D

    X. Gan and Y.-D. Tsai, JHEP07, 094, arXiv:2308.07951 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    Battaglieriet al., inU.S

    M. Battaglieriet al., inU.S. Cosmic Visions: New Ideas in Dark Matter(2017) arXiv:1707.04591 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2017

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Beacham, C

    J. Beacham, C. Burrage, D. Curtin, A. De Roeck, J. Evans, J. L. Feng, C. Gatto, S. Gninenko, A. Hartin, I. Irastorza,et al., J. Phys. G47, 010501 (2020), arXiv:1901.09966 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    European Strategy for Particle Physics Preparatory Group, inPhysics Briefing Book(CERN, Geneva, 2019) arXiv:1910.11775 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Davidson and M

    S. Davidson and M. E. Peskin, Phys. Rev. D49, 2114 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9310288 [hep-ph]

    1994 arXiv

  4. [12]

    A. A. Prinzet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 1175 (1998), arXiv:hep-ex/9804008

    1998 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Essiget al., inSnowmass 2013: Snowmass on the Mississippi(2013) arXiv:1311.0029 [hep-ph]

    R. Essiget al., inSnowmass 2013: Snowmass on the Mississippi(2013) arXiv:1311.0029 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Chatrchyanet al.(CMS), Phys

    S. Chatrchyanet al.(CMS), Phys. Rev. D87, 092008 (2013), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 106, 099903 (2022)], arXiv:1210.2311 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Davidson, S

    S. Davidson, S. Hannestad, and G. Raffelt, J. High En- ergy Phys.05, 003 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0001179 [hep- ph]

    2000 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Badertscher, P

    A. Badertscher, P. Crivelli, W. Fetscher, U. Gendotti, S. Gninenko, V. Postoev, A. Rubbia, V. Samoylenko, and D. Sillou, Phys. Rev. D75, 032004 (2007), arXiv:hep- ex/0609059

    2007

  9. [17]

    Magill, R

    G. Magill, R. Plestid, M. Pospelov, and Y.-D. Tsai, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 071801 (2019), arXiv:1806.03310 [hep- ph]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    A. Haas, C. S. Hill, E. Izaguirre, and I. Yavin, Phys. Lett. B746, 117 (2015), arXiv:1410.6816 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Ballet al., A Letter of Intent to Install a milli-charged Particle Detector at LHC P5 (2016), arXiv:1607.04669 [physics.ins-det]

    A. Ballet al., A Letter of Intent to Install a milli-charged Particle Detector at LHC P5 (2016), arXiv:1607.04669 [physics.ins-det]

    2016 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Ballet al., Phys

    A. Ballet al., Phys. Rev. D102, 032002 (2020), arXiv:2005.06518 [hep-ex]

    2020

  13. [21]

    Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Phys

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 131802 (2025), arXiv:2402.09932 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevaloet al.(MiniBooNE DM), Phys. Rev. D98, 112004 (2018), arXiv:1807.06137 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    L. B. Auerbachet al.(LSND), Phys. Rev. D63, 112001 (2001), arXiv:hep-ex/0101039

    2001 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Harnik, Z

    R. Harnik, Z. Liu, and O. Palamara, JHEP07, 170, arXiv:1902.03246 [hep-ph]

    1902 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Acciarriet al.(ArgoNeuT), Phys

    R. Acciarriet al.(ArgoNeuT), Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 131801 (2020), arXiv:1911.07996 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Baraket al.(SENSEI), Phys

    L. Baraket al.(SENSEI), Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 071801 (2024), arXiv:2305.04964 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Davidson, B

    S. Davidson, B. Campbell, and D. C. Bailey, Phys. Rev. D43, 2314 (1991)

    1991

  20. [28]

    Mohapatra and I

    R. Mohapatra and I. Rothstein, Phys. Lett. B247, 593 (1990)

    1990

  21. [29]

    Agneseet al.(CDMS), Phys

    R. Agneseet al.(CDMS), Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 111302 (2015), arXiv:1409.3270 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Emken, R

    T. Emken, R. Essig, C. Kouvaris, and M. Sholapurkar, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.09, 070, arXiv:1905.06348 [hep-ph]

    1905 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Singh (TEXONO), Phys

    L. Singh (TEXONO), Phys. Rev. D99, 032009 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    S. I. Alvis (Majorana), Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 211804 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    P. C. Kim, E. R. Lee, I. T. Lee, M. L. Perl, V. Halyo, and D. Loomba, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 161804 (2007)

    2007

  26. [34]

    D. C. Moore, A. D. Rider, and G. Gratta, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 251801 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    Brust, D

    C. Brust, D. E. Kaplan, and M. T. Walters, J. High En- ergy Phys.12, 058 (2013), arXiv:1303.5379 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Vogel and J

    H. Vogel and J. Redondo, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02, 029 (2014), arXiv:1311.2600 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Plestid, V

    R. Plestid, V. Takhistov, Y.-D. Tsai, T. Bringmann, A. Kusenko, and M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. D102, 115032 (2020), arXiv:2002.11732 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Kachelriess and J

    M. Kachelriess and J. Tjemsland, Astropart. Phys.132, 102622 (2021), arXiv:2104.06811 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    C. A. Arg¨ uelles Delgado, K. J. Kelly, and V. Mu˜ noz Al- bornoz, JHEP11, 099, arXiv:2104.13924 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    Harnik, R

    R. Harnik, R. Plestid, M. Pospelov, and H. Ramani, Phys. Rev. D103, 075029 (2021), arXiv:2010.11190 [hep- ph]

    2021 arXiv

  33. [41]

    A. Fung, S. Heeba, Q. Liu, V. Muralidharan, K. Schutz, and A. C. Vincent, Phys. Rev. D109, 083011 (2024), arXiv:2309.06465 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Izaguirre and I

    E. Izaguirre and I. Yavin, Phys. Rev. D92, 035014 (2015), arXiv:1506.04760 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Ballet al.(milliQan), Phys

    A. Ballet al.(milliQan), Phys. Rev. D104, 032002 (2021), arXiv:2104.07151 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Chatrchyan (CMS), JINST3, S08004 (2008)

    S. Chatrchyan (CMS), JINST3, S08004 (2008)

    2008

  37. [45]

    Eljen Technology,https://eljentechnology.com/(Ac- cessed: September 5, 2025)

    2025

  38. [46]

    com/(Accessed: September 5, 2025)

    Hamamatsu Photonics K.K.,https://www.hamamatsu. com/(Accessed: September 5, 2025)

    2025

  39. [47]

    CAEN S.p.A,https://www.caen.it/products/v1743/ (Accessed: September 5, 2025)

    2025

  40. [48]

    Sj¨ ostrand, S

    T. Sj¨ ostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands, Comput. Phys. Commun.178, 852 (2008), arXiv:0710.3820 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Mal- toni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro, J. High Energy Phys.07, 079 (2014), arXiv:1405.0301 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Cacciari, M

    M. Cacciari, M. Greco, and P. Nason, JHEP05, 007, arXiv:hep-ph/9803400

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    Y.-Q. Ma, K. Wang, and K.-T. Chao, Phys. Rev. D84, 114001 (2011), arXiv:1012.1030 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Y.-Q. Ma, K. Wang, and K.-T. Chao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 042002 (2011), arXiv:1009.3655 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Ma and R

    Y.-Q. Ma and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 192301 (2014), arXiv:1408.4075 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Chatrchyan (CMS), Phys

    S. Chatrchyan (CMS), Phys. Lett. B780, 251 (2018), 7 arXiv:1710.11002 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Aad (ATLAS), Phys

    G. Aad (ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B705, 9 (2011), arXiv:1106.5325 [hep-ex]

    2011 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Aad (ATLAS), Phys

    G. Aad (ATLAS), Phys. Rev. D87, 052004 (2013), arXiv:1211.7255 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Aaij (LHCb), J

    R. Aaij (LHCb), J. High Energy Phys.07, 134 (2018), [Erratum: JHEP05,076(2019)], arXiv:1804.09214 [hep- ex]

    2018 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Agostinelliet al.(GEANT4), Nucl

    S. Agostinelliet al.(GEANT4), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506, 250 (2003)

    2003

  51. [59]

    Khachatryanet al.(CMS), Phys

    V. Khachatryanet al.(CMS), Phys. Lett. B771, 435 (2017)

    2017

  52. [60]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS and CMS),Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011, Tech

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS and CMS),Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011, Tech. Rep. CMS-NOTE-2011-005, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-11 (CERN, 2011)

    2011

  53. [61]

    Junk, Nucl

    T. Junk, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A434, 435 (1999), arXiv:hep-ex/9902006 [hep-ex]

    1999 arXiv

  54. [62]

    A. L. Read, J. Phys. G28, 2693 (2002)

    2002

  55. [63]

    Cowan, K

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1554 (2011), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 73, 2501 (2013)], arXiv:1007.1727 [physics.data-an]

    2011 arXiv

  56. [64]

    CMS.1BNU.8V1W

    CMS data availability statement,10.7483/OPENDATA. CMS.1BNU.8V1W. 8 End Matter Appendix: Background Estimate Distributions—For completeness, we provide the distributions of events used in the ABCD background estimation method. Figure 2 shows the distributions of the uncorrelate...

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.